Used to be thought, intuitively obvious really, that if you put the abusive and non-abusive parent at opposite ends of a hall and let the kid go in the center the child would run toward the non-abusive parent. Doesn’t work that way.

The abuser is sending stronger signals and the penalty for not running toward them is much more painful. The GOP is willing to trash the economy and see American lined up in bread lines to win power. Trashing the career of an active CIA agent is just the beginning of their wrath for a small slight. A million grannies reduced to eating cat food is seen as their just deserts for not being good capitalists.

When the GOP mouthpieces speak it isn’t in pastels and shades of gray as the carefully lay out the rational way to deal with a complicated world. They don’t talk about their misinformed but honorable opponent.

Anyone not agreeing is evil, the Antichrist, Hitler incarnate. Fascist/communist/terrorist loving idiot is so far down on the scale of insults that it is practically a term of endearment for them. People who do their bidding, assuming they have the means to demand their share, are richly rewarded. Both stick and carrots are applied lavishly.

With the Dems you never know if you are on their good side. So concern with being even handed the sweetness gets spread to friend and foe alike. Anger is expressed to opponents as their being misinformed and misguided.

The American citizenry is caught between the enabling Dems and the abusive GOP. Under financial,and emotional stress they automatically run toward the GOP.

America needs therapy.

Yeah, but … I can not think of a single way in which Tim Pawlenty’s politics are different from Michele Bachmann.

He does seem to spend a fair amount of time on trade missions … maybe he’s working for the CIA or something.

Oh, wait, I probably shouldn’t have said that out loud…

I still can’t believe that these people will actually make it as far as the presidential ticket, though. I think Tim Pawlenty is more probable. Bachman and Palin make good TV, but I don’t think they can actually win more than, oh, 27% of the national popular vote. Not that I’d be at all happy with Pawlenty either (I’m a fellow Minnesotan). Because I think his domestic policies would be a disaster for the poor and middle class. But like most governors, he probably has very little experience in international affairs, and will do what his advisors recommend — the same recommendations a Democrat would likely get.

See, people like Paul Wellstone or George McGovern or Al Franken are on one end of the spectrum among Democrats, but there are actually a LOT of Dems at that end, some in office, many activists.

The real key issue here is how will Democrats and Republicans in office or running for office react to the greater diversity that exists among their base.

In the case of the tea party they put a few dozen crazies in office. In the case of the Democrats, we’ve been diversifying our elected representation for years, so we have blue dogs and we have progressives.

There is no way that the teabaggers, who are to the right of George Bush, becoming a strong factor, don’t make the Republicans different, even in foreign policy, going foward.

I mean, seriously, Sarah Palin and Michel Bachmann are the fave’s for the next Republican ticket.

I mean, seriously, Sarah Palin and Michel Bachmann are the fave’s for the next Republican ticket.

I had to say that twice because I didn’t believe it the first time. Second time, I threw up a little inside my mouth.

I don’t think sane Republicans and sane Democrats actually differ enough on foreign policy for my taste. It seems like, leaving out Bush’s War, the US has behaved pretty consistently under both types of leadership over the last half century. Perhaps that’s because a lot of foreign and military policy is actually made by the diplomatic corps and the military leadership. Anyway, I am one of the rare voters, I think, who does care about foreign policy. The Democratic party is definitely giving less aid and comfort to their nutcases right now (though there are leftist nutcases too, mostly of the extreme isolationist and protectionist flavor) and thus represents the clear choice. But still, I feel justified in saying that there is not as much difference between the sane Republicans and the sane Democrats as I would like.

(What I’d like: an end to American exceptionalism. The US signs on to the World Court, pays its UN dues, signs the Kyoto accords and ratifies the Convention on the Rights of the Child, etc. Cuts military spending and the associated saber rattling. Sends troops in aid of UN and NATO peacekeeping missions but almost never unilaterally. Abides by the Geneva conventions. Opens its markets to exports from Africa and South America while maintaining environmental and employee treatment standards on goods and commodities imported from those places. Makes legal immigration much easier and the borders more open. Etc etc. Granted all of these things are more likely under a Democratic administration than under a Republican one. But unfortunately for me as a foreign policy voter, in absolute terms they’re extremely unlikely under either. Hence, not different enough for me.)

Rich Dudes: OMFG! You cut taxes and I won’t be able to spend more money and make more jobs and make the poor richer!

Government: You, Rich Dudes, you’re not spending that money fast enough anyway. Here, let me help you spend it.

I also object to the “purchases of luxury items like $100M yachts and $20M houses helps the economy” argument – sure it helps, but not enough.

So, my question: Would Obama have made up weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq? No. Bush and Obama are not the same.

Also, everybody supported bush, but the R’s did it because they are bloodthirsty ghouls, and the D’s did it because they are ball-less sheep. So they did the same thing but for importantly different reasons.

Then there’s the few that opposed the war, and they were pretty much all or almost all Dems.

There are differences, and a lot of us want to see the differences broaden. But the position that they are not different therefore give up on both is unhelpful (not that you were saying that, but I hear it all the time and I find it to be a cop out).

And I agreed too. Because whether or not you like the Wall Street banks, if they went down, the whole economic system would’ve gone down with them, including everyone’s retirement accounts and most people’s homes.

On other issues, there is no consensus within the parties — there are free traders and protectionists on both sides of the aisle. Immigration divides the parties only slightly less. (I think the rich Republicans don’t mind illegal immigrants so much — they don’t compete with them for jobs; they hire them.)

And on foreign policy, the differences are smaller than I’d like. Bush was really anomalously bad, and a lot of Republicans think he screwed up too. Obama and Clinton were not pacificists either; both have ordered a lot of strategic bombing, and Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan.

If these are the issues you care about, then I think its fair to say there is little difference between the parties. That’s part of the problem with having a two party system. You’d really need a lot of parties to ensure ideological unity within each on every issue.

But on the question of taxation and the social safety net, there are very real differences. And on the “social issues” as well. If these are the things that matter to you, then you’re in luck — you get a stark choice in the US.